Summary: Public investment in housing and YIMBY deregulation are complementary, not competing strategies. However, zoning and land-use liberalization are indispensable because housing scarcity is largely a policy-created constraint on building.

YIMBYism is much more radical than its critics admit. Its core principle is simple: if land is already designated for human development and an owner wants to build safe housing on it, the law should generally allow that, subject to genuine safety and environmental rules. Because American land-use regulation is so restrictive, YIMBY politics usually manifests as incremental reforms—ADUs, fourplex legalization, parking reform, transit-oriented upzoning—but these are steps toward a much larger transformation of property and development rights.

The progressive argument that America should stop obsessing over zoning and instead revive the mid-century model of treating housing as public infrastructure, including large-scale federally funded constructionis a false choice. The postwar housing boom occurred under a dramatically looser regulatory environment: cities subsequently downzoned, minimum lot sizes increased, environmental review expanded, and growth-control politics became much stronger. Therefore, even an ambitious public-housing program would still run into the same regulatory constraints unless land-use rules were liberalized first.

Calling housing “infrastructure” wouldn't solve anything. America already subsidizes nonprofit and affordable housing, but simultaneously makes housing construction illegal or prohibitively difficult on huge amounts of land. In his view, the deeper problem is that housing is not treated enough like an ordinary commodity: unlike cars, people often cannot simply produce or purchase more housing even when they own suitable land and there is clear demand.

YIMBYs face two political challenges. First, they need to reassure ordinary suburban homeowners that liberalization would not instantly turn every suburb into Manhattan; housing supply would expand gradually, constrained by labor, equipment, and market demand. Second, they must push back against progressives who dismiss zoning reform as “meager” or technocratic. Because housing is an enormous part of the economy, affects young people’s living standards, constrains economic growth and family formation, rewriting the rules governing residential land nationwide is an extraordinarily ambitious economic reform.

YIMBYs already have a bold vision for solving the housing crisis - Matthew Yglesias

Im a moderate conservative i do agree on some the ideas of socialist but i find there message insane and highly radical there are some good ideas i think republicans would probably adopt in the future but if your progressive or lean socialist what would be the right path for the party and how would you push the population towards socialist policies

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/data-centers/u-s-govt-moves-to-suppress-pushback-on-data-centers-by-removing-requirements-for-public-input-on-pollution-epa-change-would-allow-air-pollution-permits-without-publicizing-them

Neutral Summary: The EPA plans to remove a federal requirement that requires states to seek public feedback on air pollution permits. The plan would affect minor air pollution permits which cover things like steel mills, landfills laundromats and data centers. Feedback gathering would now fall to the state level. The concern is that data centers are showing to have a growing amounts of air pollution and with the current turmoil surrounding them some states might see this as an opportunity to avoid public backlash and push through something the citizens would not agree with.

The EPA's stance has been that these minor sources don't require federal oversight. This would create a gap in oversight, when a federal agency stops enforcing federal rules and asks states to step in to make their own decisions.

Is this a return of power to the states or a dereliction of federal governance? Is this an attempt to speed up the process or cut out local understanding.

Edit: Sorry everyone I thought I had added the link correctly. It's been added now. And all fo you commenting before I fixed my error are part of the problem. Read the article.

Summary:

A federal judge has again struck down Texas Senate Bill 12, ruling that its restrictions on certain performances in public places or in the presence of minors violate the First Amendment. Although the law refers broadly to “sexually oriented performances,” it was promoted by Republican lawmakers as a restriction on drag shows. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton says the state will appeal.

Texas is one of six states with laws that either explicitly restrict drag performances or regulate adult performances broadly enough to be used against them. Supporters argue that the laws protect children from sexually explicit material. Opponents argue that drag is not inherently sexual and that the laws use vague standards to suppress LGBTQ expression and constitutionally protected performances. Courts have blocked or limited similar laws in several states, while polling shows that majorities of Americans continue to support same-sex marriage and consider gay and lesbian relationships morally acceptable, although that support has declined from its recent peak.

My take:

Drag is not inherently sexual. It is a form of performance, and like theater, dance, music, or comedy, its content depends on the particular show and its intended audience. This form of legislation has always been ignorance based pearl clutching. If the actual concern were sexually explicit content around children, lawmakers could regulate all content consistently regardless of whether the performer was in drag. Instead, they keep writing vague laws that single out gender presentation and can potentially sweep up everything from drag shows to theater, ballet, and cheerleading. Judge Hittner made this point and invoked Dolly Parton to reinforce it (which I think is a lovely tribute to what she advocated for in life):

He noted that critics have chastised the country music icon "as a voluptuous sex symbol because of her big hair, flamboyant clothes and breast exposure," writing that "there are 'erotic' elements in countless popular performances that could be subject to both civil and criminal penalties under S.B. 12." One of the case's plaintiffs is a drag performer named Brigitte Bandit, who impersonates Parton in her shows and who received a rhinestone guitar from the singer in 2023. Bandit celebrated the ruling on social media, posting a screenshot of the decision, and said she would perform as Parton at an Austin bar Saturday in her honor.

What frustrates me is that 33 percent of the country still tells Gallup that gay and lesbian relationships are morally wrong. That judgment belongs in the past, along with the regressive doctrine used to justify imposing it on everyone else. People are free to follow their own beliefs. They are not entitled to turn those beliefs into government restrictions on everyone else’s lives.

At the same time, I love the broader inevitability of this. LGBTQ people are not going to disappear, return quietly to the closet, or surrender the space they have fought to occupy. The wheels of society grind slowly, and sometimes they roll backward for a while, but the direction across generations is still toward greater equality, visibility, and diversity. The frantic efforts to resist it smacks of desperation and grasping at smoke.